mihomes - 10:55 pm on Oct 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

First impressions :

- I really bothers me that Matt describes using this because you forum spammed, bought links, were in a link network, etc., etc... there is no mention at all of negative seo from a competitor... they just assume everyone had a choice in getting these 'bad' links. I know I have some horrible links and had nothing to do about it nor can I DO anything about. From reading this forum there are others in this same boat as well.

- Before this was announced I was pretty bitter about the whole 'bad' links affecting ones site. Particularly for the reason mentioned above where I did nothing wrong to get 'bad' links, but yet could do nothing about it either (we can't control another individuals site nor can we force them to do anything... usually).

My original thought was simple... if Google deems a site as 'bad' then just make those links zero, zilch, nothing - they pass no negative value nor positive for that matter. This solves both scenarios... paid links are worthless and negative seo (as an example) has no bearing on the target site. This also somewhat automates the process.

While I am glad they released this, as it was much needed, I still feel the above resolution would have been better. This just creates something else to spend tons of time on for the average webmaster where it could be better spent elsewhere with the site in question.

Happy? Yes, I am, but feel it could have been handled better by the brains at big G.